I agree with Cherine Akkari that it's a bigt of an oxymoron, similar to sustainable growth - see Albert Bartlett's 'laws'' of sustainability (in some way, similar to the steady state economy of herman Daly). the most pertinent point that one can intensify and make more efficient everything, but with continuing population growth and high consumption levels the total is likely to cancel the effort at greater efficiency (intensity)

A) A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a sustainable society.

B) Unsustainability will be the certain result of any program of "development," that does not plan the achievement of zero (or a period of negative) growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources. This is true even if the program is said to be “sustainable.”

C) The research and regulation programs of governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and promoting "sustainability" are, in the long run, irrelevant, unless these programs address vigorously and quantitatively the concept of carrying capacities and unless the programs study in depth the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems.

D) Societies, or sectors of a society, that depend on population growth or growth in their rates of consumption of resources, are unsustainable.

E) Persons who advocate population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources are advocating unsustainability.

F) Persons who suggest that sustainability can be achieved without stopping population growth are misleading themselves and others.

G) Persons whose actions directly or indirectly cause increases in population or in the rates of consumption of resources are moving society away from sustainability.

H) The term "Sustainable Growth" is an oxymoron.

I) In terms of population sizes and rates of resource consumption, “The only smart growth is no growth.” (Hammond, 1999)

have you read this?

Article Bio-economic Household Modelling for Agricultural Intensification

Many thanks Dr. Kruseman for this valuable work!

All the best, Mohamed

Sustainable Intensification is a paradigm, which appear to be an oxymoron in general (just saying).

I would suggest the article of Garnett. T et al. (2013): Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies. Here is the link: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6141/33.short

And here some additional readings:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/4294967719.pdf

http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/CA-Publications/CA_SPI_Teramo_Friedrich_Kassam.pdf

http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/sites/futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/files/Sustainable%20Intensification%20Comments.pdf

http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1404/111120_BROCH_SUST_INTENS_DEF.pdf

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/africanagriculturaldevelopment/Public/Montpellier%20Panel%20Report%202013%20-%20Sustainable%20Intensification%20-%20A%20New%20Paradigm%20for%20African%20Agriculture.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2215e/i2215e.pdf

http://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Wolf-in-Sheep%E2%80%99s-Clothing-summary.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3763/ijas.2010.0583

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/50/20260.full.pdf+html

Cheers!

I agree with Cherine Akkari that it's a bigt of an oxymoron, similar to sustainable growth - see Albert Bartlett's 'laws'' of sustainability (in some way, similar to the steady state economy of herman Daly). the most pertinent point that one can intensify and make more efficient everything, but with continuing population growth and high consumption levels the total is likely to cancel the effort at greater efficiency (intensity)

A) A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a sustainable society.

B) Unsustainability will be the certain result of any program of "development," that does not plan the achievement of zero (or a period of negative) growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources. This is true even if the program is said to be “sustainable.”

C) The research and regulation programs of governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and promoting "sustainability" are, in the long run, irrelevant, unless these programs address vigorously and quantitatively the concept of carrying capacities and unless the programs study in depth the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems.

D) Societies, or sectors of a society, that depend on population growth or growth in their rates of consumption of resources, are unsustainable.

E) Persons who advocate population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources are advocating unsustainability.

F) Persons who suggest that sustainability can be achieved without stopping population growth are misleading themselves and others.

G) Persons whose actions directly or indirectly cause increases in population or in the rates of consumption of resources are moving society away from sustainability.

H) The term "Sustainable Growth" is an oxymoron.

I) In terms of population sizes and rates of resource consumption, “The only smart growth is no growth.” (Hammond, 1999)

also see High-yielding crops: A double edge sword for tropical forests

http://facultyofscience.shef.ac.uk/high-yielding-crops-a-double-edge-sword-for-tropical-forests/

Is "sustainable intensification" a useful concept?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_sustainable_intensification_a_useful_concept

let me add a few other links to this discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_sustainable_intensification_of_agricultural_lands_possible_for_the_next_three_decades

Article Putting back meaning into “sustainable intensification”

Article Preface to Special Issue on Conservation Agriculture for Sus...